Internic address allocation policy
karl at mcs.com
Sun Mar 19 14:36:16 UTC 1995
> On Sat, 18 Mar 1995, ATM_Feel_the_Power wrote:
> > It would be a good idea to recover the ip address numbers that have never
> > been used. I would also suggest that within 90 days of issuance the
> > numbers must be in service or they are recalled.
> I agree that unused address _blocks_ be recovered.
> However your 90 day "use-it-or-lose-it" is a bit rash. From a
> fellow-provider standpoint, I want to be able to get a nice-sized block of
> "class-c" addresses that I can aggregate into _1_ routing statement. To do
> that, I have to have the freedom to project client usage for a year and
> request a year's supply. Your suggestion would have me applying to the
> NIC on a "just-in-time" basis, and creating at least one more routing
> entry for each new client. Backbone routers are melting down already
> because of too many entries. And it is not like the NIC has the time to
> take on the more frequent requests for addresses and keep track of who's
> time is up that your plan would impose (or if they do, I want to know
> where a couple of domain registrations are :) ).
> My vote would be for the six-twelve month timeframe for useage.
> Michael Ramsey (KD4OKR) Network Engineering | INTERPATH
> msr at interpath.net | info at interpath.net
Of course, when we projected that, they didn't believe us -- and refused to
grant the block.
My request was for 256 Class "C"s. We have consumed almost exactly that in
Yet, we were told to go stuff a year ago when we asked for the block, and
instead have had to get four different smaller blocks of space from other
sources. And we are not alone; I am personally involved with another
NATIONAL provider who has been told to stuff more than once by these folks,
and they consume addresses rather more quickly than we do.
This sucks, and in addition, it is counter-productive. Announcing one
aggregate beats announcing 4.
Of course, the NIC does not now and never has in the past given a damn
about getting ISPs *appropriate* sized blocks of addresses, nor does it
believe you when you call or email and request an allocation. I've been
told several times "the evidence does not support that allocation" and then
turned around and exceeded my own estimates (which I tend to be conservative
with) within a few months.
Perhaps its time to set up the Anti-NIC and start allocating addresses
from 223.255.255.x on down.
Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
Modem: [+1 312 248-0900] | (shell, PPP, SLIP, leased) in Chicagoland
Voice: [+1 312 248-8649] | 6 POPs online through Chicago, all 28.8
Fax: [+1 312 248-9865] | Email to "info at mcs.net" for more information
ISDN: Surf at Smokin' Speed | WWW: http://www.mcs.net, gopher: gopher.mcs.net
More information about the NANOG